Trailblazer Social Care Ltd

Updated 13 February 2019

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.’

The inspection took place on 20 December 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours' notice of the inspection visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure management would be available to talk with us.

The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors and an assistant inspector. Two inspectors visited the office location to see the registered manager and office staff; and to review care records, policies and procedures and quality assurance documents. Prior to our visit to the office the assistant inspector carried out telephone interviews with people who used the service, their relatives and staff.

Before the inspection, we reviewed all the information we held about the service including previous

inspection reports and notifications received by the CQC. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to tell us about by law. We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to decide which areas to focus on during our inspection. We requested and received feedback on the service from the local safeguarding teams and commissioners.

We spoke with three people using the service and two relatives of people using the service. We spoke with six staff; this included the registered manager and care workers. We looked at records for four people using the service including support plans and risk assessments. We analysed three medicine administration records. We reviewed training, recruitment and supervision records for three staff including recent observations of their competencies. We looked at minutes of team meetings, various policies and procedures and reviewed the quality assurance and monitoring systems of the service.

Updated 13 February 2019

The inspection took place on 20 December 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours' notice of the inspection visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure management would be available to talk with us.

When we inspected Trailblazer Social Care Ltd in August 2017 we found the service was in breach of regulation as they were not following safe systems for recruitment of staff. At this inspection we found the service had made sufficient improvement to achieve compliance.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to adults in the Calderdale area.

On the day of our inspection a registered manager was in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff had completed safeguarding adults training and knew how to keep people safe and report concerns. People's medicines were safely managed but some improvements were needed in relation to medication records.

People told us they felt safe due to the support they received from staff. Staff had a good understanding of how to support people safely and knew what to do if they had concerns about

people's safety.

Staff were recruited safely, although the registered manager agreed the process would benefit from further improvement. There were enough staff to provide people with the care and support they needed.

People and their relatives felt staff had appropriate skills and were competent. Staff had a good understanding of the people they supported and had access to ongoing training and supervision to support and improve their practice. Some people told us they struggled to understand some staff due to heavy or strong accents. The registered manager had enrolled the staff concerned on a course to improve their spoken English.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice People told us that they were involved in their care, and we saw examples of how people’s consent was sought. Not all the staff we spoke with had a good understanding of MCA. We have made a recommendation in this regard.

People and their relatives told us staff were caring and were mostly considerate of their privacy and dignity needs.

New systems had been developed to address issues raised by people in relation to inconsistency of their care team. People told us this had led to improvements.

Staff supported people with meals and drinks although one person told us they had to ask some staff to make them a drink.

We saw examples of how people were supported to access healthcare services to maintain their health and well-being.

People were involved in their care. They told us they were involved in their care planning and had a copy of their care plan.

People’s needs in relation to the protected characteristics under the Equalities Act 2010, were considered in the planning of their care. People's communication needs were assessed

People told us they would feel comfortable to raise issues or concerns and that the management team and staff were friendly and approachable. The registered manager appropriately investigated complaints and incidents

People, their relatives and staff were complimentary about the leadership and management of the service. There were several systems in place to monitor the quality of care.